My argument is not invalid, you are just misinterpreting it. The original poster was claiming that one: OS/2 is insecure because most software written at the same time was insecure; two: OS/2 has a lot of undiscovered vulnerabilities because it is not widely adopted. I was debunking the second claim by stating an example to the contrary to demonstrate that you cannot assume OS/2 is vulnerable because it is not ubiquitous. Never once did I extrapolate that single data point regarding Apache versus IIS to the general case.
All I really see from this statement is that you have no understanding of logic.
If an argument supports that a claim is true in general, the argument is shown to be invalid if an example to the contrary is found. Mind clarifying the mistake for my benefit?
Considering [OS/2's] complexity excuse me if I don't believe it is secure.
Complexity and security are not oppposites. All modern operating systems are complex but they tend to have varying levels of security. Cryptography and fine-grained access control significantly increase complexity but also harden a system. In otherwords, complexity can make security weaker or stronger.
Most of the software from that timeframe has been shown to have a lot of security problems
Given multiple products competing in the same space for any timeframe, some will have lower standards than others. You cannot conclude logically that all products for a given timeframe will therefore have lower standards. The reality is quite the opposite of your statement. OS/2 had a market presence the same time as DOS and Windows 3.1 but it was far superior, offering features found in all operating systems today. In terms of stability and security, it was years ahead of the game, hence its popularity. When a system is designed does not necessarily indicate its performance for any metric. How a system is design and built, on the otherhand, does.
[T]he training, and tools to discover holes didn't exist at the time.
What training would that be? The techniques for cracking systems today have been around for as long as computing. Computer science and cryptography with computers are likewise just as old as any computer system. As for tools, you mean debuggers, packet sniffers, profilers, and so forth?
If OS/2 was released [open source] tomorrow and got popular you'd have it with the most security [vulnerabilities] by years end I guarantee it.
Besides your guarantee, what are the reasons for this? Apache HTTPD is open source yet has far fewer vulnerabilities than Internet Information Server. Why does open source mean more vulnerabilities?
The only reason OS/2 appears to be secure is because it isn't worth any one's time trying to crack it.
Or perhaps it is well designed. Another false argument along these lines is used to explain why Windows has more vulnerabilities than any given Linux distro: because its ubiquity. When you consider the wide-spread use of Apache versus IIS, you see this argument holds no water.
16 million iPod sales in 2005 alone. Nearly one billion songs purchased from iTMS. 90% and 70% market share respectively. Just thought I'd remind you that the market has spoken and you're old. In closing, screw you.
And your mention of the Olympic torch is a stawman. (And it's on fire!) The torch in question is just a symbol which not only has limited scope, it's significance exists entirely in perception. It cannot be used to oppress people. It does not invade their privacy. It is, for all intents and purposes, benign. A compulsory identification card is another matter altogether. This changes things and usually for the worse.
Little did you know, when making your post, that Congressional staffers quietly changed the definition of Mach on Wikipedia so as to thwart any attempts to advance physics to the point of achieving time travel.
Other people have commented on how this is bogus, but I want to offer an additional perspective. You absolutely cannot detect when someone is lying with absolute certainty and faith in such a technology is misguided. Which brings me to the point. Consider this example: people will tell you they know for a fact that a god or other divine figure is real and constitutes a genuine presence in their lives. Yet of all the people who say this, how many of them could prove it? How many have actually had an experience where they have spoken with some otherworldy being? (The answer is, of course, none.) But these same people have been conditioned to believe that what they are saying is the truth and nothing but the truth. They are absolutely convinced. So let me (attempt) to put this in general terms.
A lie is a false statement due largely to the context and circumstances—not simply physical factors within the entity which may be lying. For lie detection to be absolutely effective, it must take into consideration factors which are not measured when an individual is measured. That is, to determine if someone is lying, you have to determine if there are factors which might cause the person believes the lie is true.
I suppose we can make it more difficult, but people are trained to overcome polygraphs and VSA. I am sure people can be trained to believe a lie prior to a given test in order to pass as the test gets more sophisticated.
Is it really a problem that this student doesn't want to go into science? For some reason I doubt she was in line to cure cancer anyways
I think the relevant question here is: does this result from nurture or nature?
Many people are limited by what society (e.g., parents, friends, media) tells them they are capable of. Armed with this mindset against the influences of intellect and progress, they set out in the world destined to not even attempt exceeding the status quo. Personally, I am inclined to believe that most people are capable of doing great things, but are defeated at a very early age. Consider what most societies (especially ours) encourage? Today in America, professional sports and being sexy are the idealized goals for men and women respectively. Few people are working to make being smart attractive. So, of course, a young woman might think that a job involving a plain white lab coat is dull and disinteresting. You need not look very far to see evidence that lots of people think women should not look this way. One might even say we are seeing regressions to old-world thinking. Physical might, dominance of religion, and inferiority of non-white races and women. This may be a bit of a leap, but you need not look far to see this in many facets of both our society and foreign policies.
My point is ultimately that we can do tremendous harm to individuals which will trip them right out of the gate. And, I think we do, even systematically. Just think about the word “normal” as it is used in this context. “Normal” is what everyone wants to be but nobody can define, and people have been convinced that intellectually challenging work is not “normal”.
I agree completely. It is absurd to think that there should be restrictions on the government’s power. There is no reason whatsoever that the government should not just be able to demand information and property from persons or businesses. Yes, support the President and all that he and his Administration and appointies choose to do without any question or oversight!
I am looking to set up a very similar system (running Fedora) at home, but with the exception that I want everyone’s home directories on the network share. Is there any way to pull this off with both Linux and Mac OS X clients? Part of the challenge here are the extended attributes on HFS+ (which would not be implemented over CIFS and certainly not the native file server of the box). Am I all out of luck or do I need a Mac for hosting this if I want that kind of functionaliy?
Encryption does not prohibit copying. Never did, not now, and never will as this is not its intent. Why then is using content scrambling understandable? It might as well not even be there because machines to decrypt it (DVD players) are widely available. The whole purpose of encryption is completely defeated here.
I’s always wondered about this with Mac OS X. (Disclaimer: I am a complete Apple junkie.) Apple has been pushing Display PostScript for a very long time. Quartz was supposed to usher in a new era of display technology where the implementation details of a display were abstracted away as details that software didn’t care about. You say “I want the menu bar to be 1cm tall” as opposed to “I want the menu bar to be 100px tall.” In the former of those two cases, you do not worry about DPI or resolution or any other factor and that makes you future-proof. But it still seems that OS X applications think in the old model and raster graphics are everywhere. Is Apple sitting on this until we have 300DPI displays? Is it just not practical yet?
I read this list and I was shocked at the ridiculousness of the categories. First, a lot of the vulnerabilities listed are due to third-party software, so you can hardly attribute those flaws to the platform itself. (If I install an add-on to my car that makes it easier for people to break in, is Honda responsible?) Second, the Linux/Unix category is beyond absurd. In addition to covering many different Linux distributions, it also includes multiple flavors of BSD, HP-UX, AIX, and OS X among others. To make it even worst, the Linux/Unix category includes software which should definitely go under the multiple operating systems category. SquirrelMail? Apache? Come on.
This list makes about as much sense as saying: “This Ford car has fewer flaws than this Honda, Toyota, Kia, and this microwave oven combined! Great job Ford!” I suppose someone over at CERN is on the Microsoft pay role. And Slashdot bought into it. Silly.
Slashdot Mirror
My argument is not invalid, you are just misinterpreting it. The original poster was claiming that one: OS/2 is insecure because most software written at the same time was insecure; two: OS/2 has a lot of undiscovered vulnerabilities because it is not widely adopted. I was debunking the second claim by stating an example to the contrary to demonstrate that you cannot assume OS/2 is vulnerable because it is not ubiquitous. Never once did I extrapolate that single data point regarding Apache versus IIS to the general case.
If an argument supports that a claim is true in general, the argument is shown to be invalid if an example to the contrary is found. Mind clarifying the mistake for my benefit?
Complexity and security are not oppposites. All modern operating systems are complex but they tend to have varying levels of security. Cryptography and fine-grained access control significantly increase complexity but also harden a system. In otherwords, complexity can make security weaker or stronger.
Given multiple products competing in the same space for any timeframe, some will have lower standards than others. You cannot conclude logically that all products for a given timeframe will therefore have lower standards. The reality is quite the opposite of your statement. OS/2 had a market presence the same time as DOS and Windows 3.1 but it was far superior, offering features found in all operating systems today. In terms of stability and security, it was years ahead of the game, hence its popularity. When a system is designed does not necessarily indicate its performance for any metric. How a system is design and built, on the otherhand, does.
What training would that be? The techniques for cracking systems today have been around for as long as computing. Computer science and cryptography with computers are likewise just as old as any computer system. As for tools, you mean debuggers, packet sniffers, profilers, and so forth?
Besides your guarantee, what are the reasons for this? Apache HTTPD is open source yet has far fewer vulnerabilities than Internet Information Server. Why does open source mean more vulnerabilities?
Or perhaps it is well designed. Another false argument along these lines is used to explain why Windows has more vulnerabilities than any given Linux distro: because its ubiquity. When you consider the wide-spread use of Apache versus IIS, you see this argument holds no water.
...music buys YOU!
Regarding letter sent to RIAA: movies are next. Screw you also.
Sincerely,
Everyone
16 million iPod sales in 2005 alone. Nearly one billion songs purchased from iTMS. 90% and 70% market share respectively. Just thought I'd remind you that the market has spoken and you're old. In closing, screw you.
Sincerely,
Everyone
And your mention of the Olympic torch is a stawman. (And it's on fire!) The torch in question is just a symbol which not only has limited scope, it's significance exists entirely in perception. It cannot be used to oppress people. It does not invade their privacy. It is, for all intents and purposes, benign. A compulsory identification card is another matter altogether. This changes things and usually for the worse.
Little did you know, when making your post, that Congressional staffers quietly changed the definition of Mach on Wikipedia so as to thwart any attempts to advance physics to the point of achieving time travel.
Sorry, my bad.
Other people have commented on how this is bogus, but I want to offer an additional perspective. You absolutely cannot detect when someone is lying with absolute certainty and faith in such a technology is misguided. Which brings me to the point. Consider this example: people will tell you they know for a fact that a god or other divine figure is real and constitutes a genuine presence in their lives. Yet of all the people who say this, how many of them could prove it? How many have actually had an experience where they have spoken with some otherworldy being? (The answer is, of course, none.) But these same people have been conditioned to believe that what they are saying is the truth and nothing but the truth. They are absolutely convinced. So let me (attempt) to put this in general terms.
A lie is a false statement due largely to the context and circumstances—not simply physical factors within the entity which may be lying. For lie detection to be absolutely effective, it must take into consideration factors which are not measured when an individual is measured. That is, to determine if someone is lying, you have to determine if there are factors which might cause the person believes the lie is true.
I suppose we can make it more difficult, but people are trained to overcome polygraphs and VSA. I am sure people can be trained to believe a lie prior to a given test in order to pass as the test gets more sophisticated.
No, actually, it isn’t. Sorry.
He also has a little-known career in boxing. Truly an American icon.
I’ve done the exact same thing to bypass security features on SPARCstations. Try it sometime—it’s fun!
Tangent: you don’t need to understand Chinese to understand the instructions on that page. ;)
I think the relevant question here is: does this result from nurture or nature?
Many people are limited by what society (e.g., parents, friends, media) tells them they are capable of. Armed with this mindset against the influences of intellect and progress, they set out in the world destined to not even attempt exceeding the status quo. Personally, I am inclined to believe that most people are capable of doing great things, but are defeated at a very early age. Consider what most societies (especially ours) encourage? Today in America, professional sports and being sexy are the idealized goals for men and women respectively. Few people are working to make being smart attractive. So, of course, a young woman might think that a job involving a plain white lab coat is dull and disinteresting. You need not look very far to see evidence that lots of people think women should not look this way. One might even say we are seeing regressions to old-world thinking. Physical might, dominance of religion, and inferiority of non-white races and women. This may be a bit of a leap, but you need not look far to see this in many facets of both our society and foreign policies.
My point is ultimately that we can do tremendous harm to individuals which will trip them right out of the gate. And, I think we do, even systematically. Just think about the word “normal” as it is used in this context. “Normal” is what everyone wants to be but nobody can define, and people have been convinced that intellectually challenging work is not “normal”.
Because that is none of your damn business!
I am glad that people with moderator points are able to so effectively recognize satirical writing.
I hear he’s a member of the Film Actors Guild.
(Just teasing people. Sulu is a hero and I am no biggot.)
I agree completely. It is absurd to think that there should be restrictions on the government’s power. There is no reason whatsoever that the government should not just be able to demand information and property from persons or businesses. Yes, support the President and all that he and his Administration and appointies choose to do without any question or oversight!
...Russia lives in YOU!
I am looking to set up a very similar system (running Fedora) at home, but with the exception that I want everyone’s home directories on the network share. Is there any way to pull this off with both Linux and Mac OS X clients? Part of the challenge here are the extended attributes on HFS+ (which would not be implemented over CIFS and certainly not the native file server of the box). Am I all out of luck or do I need a Mac for hosting this if I want that kind of functionaliy?
Encryption does not prohibit copying. Never did, not now, and never will as this is not its intent. Why then is using content scrambling understandable? It might as well not even be there because machines to decrypt it (DVD players) are widely available. The whole purpose of encryption is completely defeated here.
I’s always wondered about this with Mac OS X. (Disclaimer: I am a complete Apple junkie.) Apple has been pushing Display PostScript for a very long time. Quartz was supposed to usher in a new era of display technology where the implementation details of a display were abstracted away as details that software didn’t care about. You say “I want the menu bar to be 1cm tall” as opposed to “I want the menu bar to be 100px tall.” In the former of those two cases, you do not worry about DPI or resolution or any other factor and that makes you future-proof. But it still seems that OS X applications think in the old model and raster graphics are everywhere. Is Apple sitting on this until we have 300DPI displays? Is it just not practical yet?
...has determined the cause of death to be either rapid incineration or radiation exposure.
For when you absolutely must have the largest penis at the LAN party.
I read this list and I was shocked at the ridiculousness of the categories. First, a lot of the vulnerabilities listed are due to third-party software, so you can hardly attribute those flaws to the platform itself. (If I install an add-on to my car that makes it easier for people to break in, is Honda responsible?) Second, the Linux/Unix category is beyond absurd. In addition to covering many different Linux distributions, it also includes multiple flavors of BSD, HP-UX, AIX, and OS X among others. To make it even worst, the Linux/Unix category includes software which should definitely go under the multiple operating systems category. SquirrelMail? Apache? Come on.
This list makes about as much sense as saying: “This Ford car has fewer flaws than this Honda, Toyota, Kia, and this microwave oven combined! Great job Ford!” I suppose someone over at CERN is on the Microsoft pay role. And Slashdot bought into it. Silly.